maurice dufour proceedings against de gaulle and col. passy for torture

8/2/2019 Maurice Dufour Proceedings Against de Gaulle and Col. Passy for Torture

1/5

(c) crown copyright

Catalogue Reference:cab/66/50/36 Image Reference:0001


2/5

Printed for the War Cabinet. Ma y 1944 .

S E C R E T . ' : v . Copy Wo.W . P . (44) 286.

W A R C A B I N E T . ' :"'

T H E D U F O U R C A S E.M E M O R A N D U M BY TH E SEC R ETA R Y %F STA T E F OR F O R EIG N A F F A I R S .

1. Nature of case.M. Ma ur ice D ufour , a Fren ch nat ion al , ins t i tu ted proceedings inA u g u s t 1 9 4 3 against General de Gaulle, Colonel Passy and s ix others , alleging,inter alia, maltreatment at Duke Street (Office of the French Bureau Centralde Rense ignem ents Action) and claiming dam ages for serious assault and falseimprisonment and a declaration that he was not a member of the Fighting Frenchforces. The princ ipa l inciden ts complained of took place in May 1 9 4 2 .M. Dufo ur alleges tha t he was kept in custody witho ut food, th a t be was inter -rogated for hours at a t ime under a bright l ight, and that he was s tr ipped to thew ais t an d beaten. The se allega tions, if stated, in cou rt, wou ld proba bly be

given great prominence by certain sections at least of the Brit ish press .2 . A ttitude of defendants.A written defence was put in in the usual form denying the charges andCounsel were instru cted . This action may have been take n w ith ou t consu ltingGe nera l de Ga ulle. How ever th at may be, he subseq uently refused to allow anyfurth er s teps to be take n by the defend ants and ordered them to wi thd raw . H isreasons are that he regards Dufour as a blackmailer , considers i t beneath hisdig nit y to defend himself ag ains t the charges and feels that H is M ajesty 'sGovernment should have sufficient sense of the respect owing to him as repre-senting France to s top the case. ,3 . A ttitude taken by Foreign Office in considtation with the Hom e O ffice.I t is believed tha t Duf our 's allegation s are substa ntially true and t h at hewill very likely win his case.After careful enquiries the Foreign Office and the Home Office are satisfied

(a ) that nothing was known to the Br i t ish author i t ies of what was going ona t Duke S t ree t ;(b ) that there was no reason why the Brit ish authorit ies should have knownor suspected what was probably going on; and(c) that as soon as attention was drawn to Duke Street by this and one or twoother cases s teps were take n to prev ent any furth er abuses. No thin gcriminal is believed to have happened at Duke Street s ince the end of1 9 4 2 .

Representations were made to the Foreign Office by the Counsel and solicitorsof both s ides asking whether His Majesty 's Government could not get the casedisposed of by a settlem ent. In view of the facts me ntione d in the pre ce din gparagraph, the Foreign Office have told both s ides that His Majesty 's Governmenthad neither the power nor the wish to interfere with the course of justice.M. Vienot has been told privately on a number of occasions that Generalde GauhVs att i tude is the worst he could possibly adopt in the interests of thedefendants, since the Court were not only likely to find in favour of Dufour butwould also take the view that the defendants were treating the Court with scantcourtesy. I t is know n that M. Vien ot and some of the defen dants , inclu ding12379 [ 2 7 5 5 8 ] '


3/5

Colonel Passy, have strongly urged General de Gaulle either to settle the case orallow them to fight it. H e has, however, refused to listen to these rep res en tat ion sand " sees red " whenever the case is mentioned.The only active step taken by the Foreign Office in connexion with the actionhas beenwith the concurrence of the Home Office, Treasury Solicitor, WarOffice and intelligen ce and secu rity au tho ritie s to ask the pl ai nt iff s solicitoron the 20th Ma y to ensure th at the case did not come on before W hits un . Th is,jvas done for m ili t ary reasons, and t he pla inti ffs solicitor readily agreed. Theprese nt posit ion is th at the case cannot come on before the 7th Ju n e and willprobab ly come on ab ou t the 20th Jun e . I t is impossible to be more definite.4. Future action.In the circumstances described above I think it would be a serious mistaketo interv ene in any wa y in this unsav oury case. Ne ithe r the Fore ign Office norany other Department was responsible for what occurred and after full considera-tion I think there is a good defence if it should be suggested that any Britishauthorit ies have been negligent in not knowing about or preventing whatoccurred. W e have nothin g to h id e and any at tem pt on our par t to in ter ferewould merely give the impression thS t we had . I t will be un for tun ate ifGe ner al de Gau lle is here when th e case comes on, bu t he ha s only himself toblame for that and we can hope that the press will have more s tirr ing events tow rite up . If Gene ral de Ga ulle 's vis it takes place before the case comes up ,he should, when he is here, be wa rne d of wha t is l ikely to hap pen . He mi gh tag ai n be presse d to defend th e actio n or settle it ou t of court. I do not th in k weshould do more than this .

' , A. E.Foreign Office, 31st May, 1944.


4/5


5/5

maurice dufour proceedings against de gaulle and col. passy for torture

Documents